3 7 3ir 



F 392 
.B7 B18 
Copy 1 



T E X A S ' CX A I M T O N E W M F. Y T n A 

— LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

SPEECH 



014 647 108 

MR. BALDWIN, OF CONNECTICUT, 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, THURSDAY, JULY 25, 1850^ 
On the ctaim of Texas to JVew Mexico. 



Mr. BALDWIN said: 

Mr. Presidekt: I am in favor of the amend- 
ment of the Senator from Missouri. I think that 
if the amendment proposed by the Senator from 
Maine for the appointment of commissioners to 
agree with commissioners from Texas upon a line 
of bounilary between the territory of the United 
States and Texas is adopted at all, it should be 
adopted with the restrictions imposed by the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri. 
I am opposed to the whole scheme of establishing 
the limits of the territory of the United States and 
Che territory of Texas by a conventional bound- 
ary in the manner proposed by the amendment of 
Che Senator from Maine, because I believe it to be 
a question that ought to be settled by that high 
tribunal established by the Constitution, with am- 
ple powers for the adjustment by judicial ad judica- 
don of all controversies in which the United States 
and the States of this Union are concerned. I 
believe that the proper mode of settling this con- 
troversy, is, that which was recommended by the 
iate President of the United States, of referring it 
io the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States, which has already acted upon similar ques- 
tions between different States of this Union, and 
in a manner satisfactory to thern all. It has been 
said by the Senator from Texas that this tribunal 
is an unfair one, because it is a tribunal constituted 
by the Government of the United States, and the 
controveray will be between the Government of 
the United States and the State of Texas. But, 
sir, is there anything more unfair in the exercise 
of judicial' power by the Supreme Court of the 
United States, in the settlement of a controversy 
between the Government and a State, than there 
is in the exercise of the same power in the settle- 
ment of a controversy between the Government 
and an individual? All controversies between the 
United States and individuals are settled before the 
courts of the United States. It is to be equally 
presumed, in the one case as in the other, that 
they will be settled fairly and impartially by that 
high tribunal whose independent position and 
tenure of office protect it from all suspicion of par- 
tiality; and there is no reasonable, no well-founded 
objection to that tribunal being appealed to, to ad- 
just and settle a controversy of this character be- 
tween the Government of the United States and 
one of the States of this Union. The objection 
that the parties' are unequal, wou'd have much 
more force when the controveriiy is one between 
the Government and an individual, since the par-' 
ties in that case are still more unequal. 

But, sir, ii has been said to be beneath the dii-- 
nity of a sovereign State of this Union to submit 
a controversy relating to her boundary to any ju- I 



dicial tribunal. I do not know whvit should be 
regarded as beneath the dignity of'Texas, when 
Massachusetts and Rhode Island.and New Jersey, 
and other States, which formed the original ele- 
ments of this Union— when States which united 
in the establishment of the Government under 
which we live— have not deemed it beneath their 
dignity. Why is it, sir, that we are told at this 
late period, by the youngest sister in the Confed- 
eracy, that it is beneath her dignity to appear 
before a tribunal to which the other States have 
appealed wiih confidence for the settlement of their 
controversies r 

Mr. RUSK, (interposing.) The honorable Sen- 
ator is mistaken in what he has said about there 
being an idea that it would derogate from the dig- 
nity of the State of Texas to appear before the 
Supreme Court. 

Mr. BALDWIN. I am not certain that the 
honorable Senator himself has urged such an ob- 
jection; but I am quite sure that the idea has been 
suggested by some gentleman who has spoken on 
the subject here. 

Mr. RUSK. If the honorable Senator will al- 
low me, I will explain what I did say. It was 
this: that the Supreme Court of the United States 
had not jurisdiction of this case, by consequence 
of the special agreement between Texas and the 
United States contained in the joint resolutions of 
annexation. By these resolutions a special tribu- 
nal was selected. There was an agreement that 
the right to settle this matter of boundary should 
be submitted to the treaty-making power 

Mr. BALDWIN. The honorable Senatorfrom 
Texas now waives all other objection, if I under- 
stand him, to the jurisdiction of the Supreme 
Court of the United States for the settlement of. 
this controversy, but insists that a different mode 
of adjustment was agreed upon in the joint reso- 
lutions of annexation tendered to and accepted by 
Texas. But what was the object of that provision 
in the joint resolutions? Texas had been neao- 
tiatmg with the United States for her admisswn 
into the Union. A treaty had been formed. 
That treaty had been rejected by the Sen ite. 
Resolutions were then proposed for the admission 
of Texas into the Union with her rightful and 
proper boundaries, providing that " the territory 
' properly included within and rightfully bet(m^ng 
' to the republic of Texas might be erected into a 
' new State, with a ret.ul)lican form .-.f govern- 
' ment, to be rdopted by the people of f.aid repub- 
• lie, by deputies assembled in convertion, with 
' -he onscnt of the exietinir gnvernmt.it, subject 
't> the adjustment by the' Government of the 
' I. nited S.ntes of ail questions of boundary that 
'might arise with other governments," That • 



7S8G: 



%':' 



73/8 



provision had no, relation whaievei- to any contro- 
versy that might arise between the Uniud 'Stales 
and Texas in relation to the risihtful boundary of 
Texas. If the lr« at y-maUrg power fnihd to set- 
tle the boundary question by a peaceful nfgotia- 
tion.suchas wasthen anticipated with ttie Republic 
of Mexico, and war intervened, by which a large 
acquisition of territory was gained by the United 
States, far exceeding; any limits that bad been 
claimed by Texas, how can it be said that that 
provision in the joint resolutione — which was in- 
troduced merely to avoid any ground of complaint 
on the part of Texas, if the United Stales, in ad- 
justing the boundary with Mexico, should relin- 
quish a portion of her claim— precludes the United 
States, now that a much larger territory has been 
acquired by cession from Mexico, from appealing 
to the proper judicial tribunals for a decision oY 
her rights? 

Mr. President, what is it that we are now pro- 
posing to do.' To appoint commissioners, not for 
the purpose of ascertaining and establishing the 
true boundary line between Texas and the terri- 
tory of the United States, but commissioners who 
are to be invested, according to the original pro- 
position, with power of agreeing with commis- 
sioners to be appointed by the State of Texas upon 
a conventional line, regardless of the true bound- 
ary heretofore existing, and of agreeing upon the 
cetablishmenl of that conventional line upon such 
ttxrm and considtr aliens as they shall be able to 
settle between themselves in regard to it. 

Now, sir, I am utterly opposed to any such 
power being conferred upon commissioners, or ex- 
ercised by this Government in any form whatever. 
If Texas is the rightful owner of this tenitory, 
let Texas have it. I do not wish to purchase it 
from her with a view of converting it either into 
free States or slave States. If it belongs to Texas, 
I deny, sir, that there is any power conferred by 
the Constitution to purchase this territory for any 
such purpose as has been indicated during the 
present discussion. Senators who have advocated 
that provision in the bill which is intended to be 
carried out by this amendment have declared, that 
in their opinion, the purchase of any portion of 
the territory claimed by Texys would be a recog- 
nition of her title. That was claimed by the hon- 
orable Senator from Alabaina, now in the chair, 
[Mr. King.] It was claimed by the honorable 
Senator from Georgia, [Mr. Berrien,] who has 
addressed the Senate upon this subject. The con- 
temp'ated purchase, then, is not to be made, in this 
view of it, for the purpose of removing an incum- 
brance — an embarrassment — from the title of the 
United Stattfs, but it is to be made under the idea 
that we are purchasing from Texas that which she 
now owns, and of which, by the very act of pur- 
chase, we are said (o recognize her ownership — 
purchasing it for the purpose of remitting it into 
the territorial condition, in order that it may be 
erected into a State hereafter. Where is the pro- 
vision in the Constitution for the purchase of teri 
ritnry from a Slate for any such purpose as this.' 
What would be thought of proposing to the Stale 
of Virginia to sell for a pecuniary consideration a 
portion of her domain, with the people inhabiting 
jt, to the United Siates, to be erectui afterwards 
into a State.' — whether a slave State or a free 
Sti:te, if-- entirely immaterial as regards 'his point. 
If we are to purchase this territory from l'cx;u' 
under such circum3t;inc»8 as to recognize thereby 
her title, can it be distinguished in any pa licuLn 
from a eiraildr puicbasefrom Virginaoraoy other 



State of a portion of her adrr itted territory } If we 
prorpfd upon the idea of establishing the true 
boundary, we do not theiehy recognize the title of 
Texas to that to whirh she relinquishes her claim: 
for we receive the re.=sion merely to remove an m- 
mmbrance from the title to territory which we 
now claim to belong to the United Slates. In such 
a case we recognize no right of Texas; but if wt 
purchase it as the territory of Texas, We might ae 
well make a piirrhase of territory from any other 
State in the Union, for the purpose of converting 
it into a new State. 

I have listened, Mr. President, very attentively 
to the arguments of the honorable Senators frorr. 
Texas in vindication of their claim to jurisdiction 
over a large portion of the territory claimed by 
New Mexico; and, sir, they have not, in my judg- 
ment, advanced a single step towards the estab- 
lishment of the title they have claimed on the 
Upper Rio Grande. 

Let us examine for a few moments the grounde 
of this claim. There is no pretence on the part of 
the Senators from Texas that any portion of thie 
territory was within the original limits of ancieni 
Texas. Nobody pretends that. There is no pre- 
tence that it was within the limits of the State or' 
Coahuila and Texas. No portion of the ancien: 
State of New Mexico was included within thf 
limits nf the Mexican State of Texas, or of Coa- 
hui'a and Texas. 

Texas, in the year 1845, being a portion of the 
Mexican Republic, of which New Mexico was also 
a province or a Territory, revolted, and, by a suc- 
cessful revolution, rer.deied herself independen: 
of the Government of Mexico, breaking oft' for- 
ever her connexion with that Republic. What die- 
Texas acquire by her successful revolution.' She 
acquired the sovereign power — the right of selt- 
government for her people within the actual limits 
of Texas, as she was at the time when she estab- 
lished her independence. She acquired still an- 
other right — that of obtaining, by conquest and by 
treaty, additional territory from Mexico, with 
whom she continued to be at war after the estab- 
lishment of her Independence. To whet extent, 
then, did Texas carry her conquests after she be- 
cnme herself a sovereign State, and capable of ac- 
nuisitioni" What did she add — what has thie 
Government admitted her to have added to hex 
original territories.' I propose to examine thai 
question for a moment. 

If Texas has acquired any title to New Mexico, 
it must have been either by conquest or cession 
from Mexico to Texas, or it must have been by 
conquest and cession to the United States for the 
benefit of Texas. And here, sir, I am willing to 
admit that if t.lie Government of the United Statei? 
in all its branches, competent to decide this ques- 
tion, went to war with Mexico for the purpose of 
vindiratine tbe title of Texas, or of the Unilecr 
- States in the right of Texas, to this entire territory, 
|] and acquired it in that way, the Government of 
11 the United States may by estopped by that aci 
from setting up any tiile in herself, in iier own 
right, tn the territory so acquired. Not, sir, thai 
the Executive, or any (^^ the subordinate officere 
of thfi United States have the power to implicate 
this Government by the admi.'jsion that this acqui- 
sition was made for the benefit of Texas, or of any 
other RtBie whatever. But if the Government of 
the United States, if the legislative department of 
this Government — which alone is competent to do 
so — h ive declared war for the purpose of vindica- 
ting the title of Texas (o I\e\v Mexico, theri it 



.3 



vill present the question of estoppel that has been 
urged by Senators who have discussed the subject 
of that title. 

What, then, are the facts, sir? When Texas 
negotiated for admission into this Union, it was 
well known that she had asserted a claim to juris- 
diction up to the sources of the Rio Grande. But 
did the resolutions of annexation admit that claim ? 
Not at all, sir. Nothinsf could be more carefully 
worded to exclude any such pretence than the 
language of the joint resolutions, it was provided 
that " the territory properly included within and 
rightfully belongina; to Texas might be erected into 
anew State." Why " territory properly included 
within and rightfully belonging to Texas," if it was 
intended by the United States that Texns should 
come in with the boundaries which she had thought 
proper to claim? The language used in the joint 
resolution shows that although Consress, when 
they passed it, had notice of the extent of the 
claims of Texas, they intended to limit her to 
3uch boundaries as she had actually acquired and 
possessed in March, 1845, when the joint resolu- 
tion was passed. What else was done, sir? Con- 
gress, when they proposed the admission of Texas, 
were not whol'y unmindful of the great fundamen- 
tal principle upon which this Government is based. 
They were not unmindful that this Government is 
founded upon, and maintained by, the assent of 
the people, and that the people cannot, consist- 
ently with the theory of our institutions, be con- 
strained to submit to any form of government to 
which they have not freely assented. When, 
therefore. Congress in 1845 proposed to Texas to 
come into the Union, what did they propose? 
That she should come in with her rightful bound- 
aries, and with a republican form of government 
CO be adopted by the people of that republic. Who 
were " the people of that republic?" Were the 
people of New Mexico, comprising a population 
of 90,000, a portion of the people of Texas at that 
time? If they were, why sir, was that constitu- 
lion presented to Congress as a constitution 
adopted by the people of Texas, when the whole 
of the people of New Mexico were excluded from 
any participation in its adoption? I should like to 
hear an explanation upon that point. H^w is it 
that we had presented here, in December, 1845, a 
document purporting to have been adopted by the 
people of the republic of Texas in convention, 
when 90,0 lO of those who are now claimed to have 
constituted a portion of that people were never in- 
^rited to cooperate in its formation ? Is this the re- 
publicanism of the nineteenth century ? Is this the 
ner in which States and people are to be brought 
into this Union? Is this indeed, the manner in 
which the Congress of the United States, who 
oassed the joint resolutions of 1845, had a right to 
suppose they would be treated by Texas ? Did 
they expect to have palmed upon them, under the 
pretext of a constitution adopted by the people of 
Texas, a document under which the people of 
New Mexico were brought into this Union, and 
with no participation whatsoever in the act by 
which they v/ere thus transferred from one juris- 
diction to another? If that be so, then, sir, we 
have a people, who have li%'ed under their own 
laws for centuries before Texas came into exist- 
ence, brought into this Union, without their assent, 
as mere appendages to Texas, without any oppor- 
tunity being afforded them of saying yea or nay to 
the act by which their allegiance was transferred 
to a foreign Government. 

No, sir-, Texas well knew at that time that no 



part of New Mexico was rightfully included in her 
limits: and therefore it was that she did not notify 
the people of New Mexico to participate in the 
formation of her constitution preparatory to her 
admission into the Union. I will not charge it 
upon the people of Texas, that they intended to 
dissemble, to conceal from the Congress of the 
United States, when they brought their constitu- 
tion here for approval, '• with proof of i's adoption 
by the people of that Republic," the fact that the 
people of New Mexico, the larger portion of the 
republic, had not cooperated, or been invited to 
coofierate, in its adoption. 

Well, sir, if Texas, when she came into the 
Union — if when she adopted her constitution in 
1845, Texas did not embrace New Mexico, how 
has she since had the power of adding new acqui- 
sitions to her domain ? Texas, after she came into 
this Union, had no power to acquire territory by 
trea'.y; nor had she any longer the power of wa- 
ging war, as an independent State, for its acquisi- 
tion. The war and the treaty which ensued, were 
the war and the treaty of the Government of the 
United States. The blood that was spilt in the acqui- 
sition of the territory of New Mexico and California 
was the blood of the people of the United States. 
The money which was expended, in pursuance of 
the stipulations of that treaty, in purchasing the 
cession of those territories was drawn from the 
common Treasury. What pretence of right is 
there, then, if Texas did not own this territory 
when she accepted the proposal tendered by the 
joint resolutions, for her present claim? She has 
done nothing by which she could have acquired 
it since. That territory, if not owned by her then, 
could come to her only by treaty or conquest. She 
could have obtained it herself in neither of these 
ways, and the United States had no power, if the 
territory did not belong to Texas, to wage a war 
of conquest to acquire it for her. But, sir, it has 
been stated in the course of this discussion by the 
honorable Senator from Virginia, whom I do not 
now see in his seat, but who usually sits nearest 
to mfl. [Mr. HnNTER,] that it was understood by 
the Executive of the United States, when Texas 
was admitted, that her jurisdiction included the 
territory claimed by her on the Upper as well as 
on the Lower Rio Grande, and he said that the in- 
structions given by Mr. Buchanan to Mr. Slidell 
indicated the same opinion. Sir, these instructions 
indicate the very reverse. Mr. Slidell did claim, 
and he was authorized by the President of the 
United S'ates to claim, as the President himself 
asserted in his message to Congress, that Texas 
extended to the Lower Rio Grande, comprehend- 
ing the territory below Paso del Norte, between 
that river and the Nueces. Upon what did the 
President ground his claim? He said it was a 
part of (he original Territory of Louisiana, ceded 
to the United States by France. He spoke of it 
as a reannexation of that which had been aban- 
doned to Spain by the treaty of 1819. That was 
the language of Mr. Polk and of the friends of 
annexation generally. It was a reannexation of 
Texas. Did he mean to indicate, when he spoke 
of a reannexation of Texas as of territory which 
was originally a partof the province of Louisiana, 
that that province had ever comprehended the capi- 
tal of New Mexico, or any portion of its terri- 
tory? Did anybody ever pretend that New Mex- 
ico formed a part of the old province of Louisiana? 
New Mexico which had been settled by the Span- 
iards long before the discoveries of La Salle, which 
conferred upon France the title to Lotjisiana? But, 



4 



eir, to the lelier of Mr. Buchanan. In that letter, 
adilresfied to Mr. Slidell, November 10, 1845, eight 
rnonihs and moie after the pHs.sing of the resolu- 
tiofis of annexation, lie writes thus: 

" The CoriprtPF of Texas, hy the act of Decrinhcr 19, 
If 33, liave tli dared ilio Mn dt-l ^ oite, trniu its niuutli to its 
Bource, to lie a limiii(Jar> ol lliiit R. puMic. 

" In riqard to ihe right of Texas to the h.iuiidary of the 
Del Norte, Ironi its nioiilh tn the I'aso, there eaiinoi,"it is ap- 
prt heiidert, he any ver) serious doubt. It would be easy to 
establish, by the authority of our inosteiiiiiieiit s-tntesmm— 
at a time, too, when the question of the boundary of the 
province of Loui^ialla was better understood than'it is at 
present— that, to this extent at least, the Del Norte was its 
western limit. 

*' It cannot be denied, however, that tJie Florida treaty of 
February S2, 1819, eededto Spain all that part of ancient 
Louisiana within the present limits of Texas ; and the more 
imporuiiit inquiry now is, what is the extent of the territo- 
rial rights which Texas has acquired by the sword in a 
righteous ref-istancc lo Mexico.'" 

Here he is looking to the sword as the only 
source of power which Texas could rely upon for 
the extension of her domain. Then, after going 
on to speak of the battle of San Jacinto, and the 
establishment of her independence, he says: 

" It may, however, he contended, on the part of Mexico, 
that the Nueces, and not the Rio del Norte, is the true west- 
ern boundary ol Texas. 1 need not furnish you arguments 
to controvert this position. 

" The case is different in regard to New Mexico. Santa F6, 
its capital, wasstt led by the tSpaniards more than two cen- 
turies ago; and that province hat- been ivtr since in their 
possession and that of the Republic of Mexico. The Texans 
netxT have ccn^tered or taken possession of it, nor have its 
people eier bien repr esent ed in any of tlieir legislative as- 
semblies or conventions." 

Here, then, Mr. Buchanan proceeds, after as- 
serting the title of Texas lo the Lower Rio Grande, 
to deny in detail every source of power upon 
which Texas could rely — every argument which 
could be urged in behalf of Texas, to extend her 
limits to the Upper Rio Grande. She had never 
conquered it; she had never taken possession of 
it; this people had never been represented in any 
of her legislative assemblies, nor in the convention 
which formed the constitution under which Texas 
came into the Union. 1 think, then, sir, that the 
honorable Senator from Virginia [Mr. Hunter] 
will find nothing in the letter of Mr. Buchanan to 
Mr. Slidell that countenances, in the slightest de- 
gree, the title now set up for dominion over any 
portion of New Mexico. He excludes it. But 
what does the President authorize him to propose ? 
He says: 

"Should the Mexican authorities prove unwilling to ex- 
tend our boundary beyond the Del Norte, you are, in that 
event, instructed to offer to assume the paj inent of all the 
just rjaims of citizens of the United States against Mexico, 
should she agree that Ihe line shall be established along the 
boundary defined hy the act of Congresa of Texas, approved 
December 19, 1836, to wit; beginning at ' the mouth of the 
Rio Grandi'; thence up to the princip;il stream of said river 
to its fource: thence due north to the forty-second degree of 
north latitude.'" 

He offers to pay to Mexico ^§6,000,000, by as- 
suming the payment of the claims of the citizens 
of the United States against Mexico, provided she 
would cede to the United States that part of New 
Mexico east of the Rio Grande, which it is now in- 
sisted was already within their actual boundaries. 
Is this in accordance with the ustinl policy of our 
Government — a Government which went lo war 
■with Mexico to vindicate, as it is said, the title of 
Texas to the Lower Rio Grande— to offer to pay 
to Mexico caims estima'ed to amount to six mil- 
lions ol dollar.*, for a cession of terriiory lo which 
our title was equnliy clear? No, sir; with such a 
claim of title no such proposition ai' that could 



ever have been made with honor by the Govern- 
ment of the United Slates. No such proposition 
ever was inade by the United States, under a be- 
lief that the territory for which this sum of money 
was offered was territory to which Texas had al- 
ready established her title. This whole claim of 
Texas lo the Upper Rio Grande amounts to 
nothing more than this: Texas, while engaged irs 
war with Mexico for the establishment of her 
own independence, was naturally desirous of ex- 
tending her dominion as far as the Rio Grande. 
She hoped, if she was successful in the conduct 
of the war, to be able to acquire dominionto that 
extent by the force of her arms. She was not 
struggling, so far as her claim to the Upper Rio 
Grande is concerned, to vindicate her title to any 
territory that she then owned or had ever pos- 
sessed; but she was strugglirg to acquire by the 
sword, an addition to that domain, the sover- 
eignty over which she had already established by 
the sword. She had not -succeeded in her effort. 
No army of Texas had penetrated New Mexico. 
No Texan, as it has been already remarked, had 
set his foot upon that territory in hostility to the 
government of New Mexico, except as a prisoner 
of war. Mr. President, I understand that the claim 
which was at one time set up in behalf of Texas, 
growing out of the convention made with Sante 
Anna when a prisoner, is abandoned. No one 
who will examine that instrument, and see what 
it purports to be upon the face of it, and will fol- 
low up his inquiries and learn when it was first 
presented for its consideration, will fail to perceive 
that not the shadow of an argument can be drawn 
from it ill favor of the extension of the claim of 
Texas. 

Did the Congress of the United States, by any 
act of theirs, ever recognize or admit the claim of 
Texas to the Upper Rto Grande ? So far from it, 
Mr. President, Congress, on the 3d of March, 
1845, three days after the passage of the joint res- 
olution, passeti an act allowing a drawback of 
duties on foreign merchandise exported to Chi- 
huahua and Santa Fe, in New Mexico — declar- 
ing, therefore, npon the face of your statute-book, 
that Santa Fe was no part of Texas, but was in 
Mexico. Congress certainly did not then con- 
sider this as a part of Texas The President, in 
his war message to Congress, did not speak of it 
as a part of Texas. He had instructed Mr. 
Buchanan, months after the passage of the joint 
resolution, to treat with Mexico for the purchase 
of this territory, and Mr. Buchanan had diisi. 
claimed any pretence of title to New Mexico, ae 
1 have already shown frorn his letter. 

But it has been said by the Senator from Texao, 
[Mr. RosK,] that the war was declared to vindi- 
cate the title of Texas to the Rio Grande. I do 
not deny, sir, that by the act of Congress whicfe 
constituted the declaration of war, the territory 
between the Nueces and the Rio Grande was re- 
garded as American soil; but it was the Lower 
Rio Grande only that was treated as a part of 
Texas. To that extent it was, indeed, conceded 
by that act (as Mr. Buchanan had before insisted 
n his letter to Mr. Slidell) that Texas had bceo 
successful in vindicating her claim, or in adding lo 
her original domain. Whatever may be my opin- 
ion in regard to it — and I certainly entertained & 
very different opinion at the time — Congress and 
the Executive did give countenance to the claim 
of Texas to the Lower Rio Grande. But, sir, nc 
department of this Government ever recognized, 
anterior to the ratification of the treaty of Quada- 



lupe Hidalio, any tiile of Texas lo the Upper Rio 
Grande. Then, Mr. President, what have we 
here? We have the jnint resolution of Congress 
requiring that the people of Texas, who are invited 
to come into this Union on giving their assent to 
the conditions it proposes, shall come with a re- 
publican constitution adopted by them in conven- 
tion. We have the great fact, that Texas presented 
her constiiuiion for our approval without consult- 
ing N«w Mexico, or inviting her people to par- 
ticipate in its formation. Here, then, was an aban- 
donment by Texas at that time — an utter abandon- 
ment of any pretence of title to New Mexico. 
Whatever claim she had before made, whether by 
the declaration on her statute-book, or other- 
wise, she must be deemed to have abandoned it, 
when she presented her constitution, adopted by { 
a different people, as the constitution required by | 
the joint resolution, and to be acted upon by this 
Govertjment. | 

We have, then, not only the cotemporaneous | 
conduct of Texas, but of the people of New Mex- I 
ico, also, who were all this time quietly reposing 
under the protection of their own laws, and had 
never thought for one moment that any other power 
than the republic of Mexico had any right of do- 
minion over them, except that which was exer- 
cised by their own departmental legislature. We 
have, then, the most cogent evidence, from the 
cotemporaneous conduct of the Congress of the 
United States, of the Executive of the United 
States, and of all the departments of this Govern- 
ment, as well as of the government of Texas, and 
of the people of New Mexico, that New Mexico 
never did, in fact or of right, form any portion of 
the republic of Texas. 

But this is not all, sir. After the war was de- 
«!ared, an army was sent by the United States to 
conquer New Mexico and California, and General 
Kearny, who commanded that army, received 
special instructions in regard to his proceedings 
from the Secretary of War, by direction of the 
President. And what were those instructions 
They were utterly inconsistent with any claim of 
Texas to the jurisdiction of New Mexico. Gen- 
eral Kearny was directed " to assure the people of 
those provinces (New Mexico and California) that 
it was the wish and design of the United States to 
provide for them a free government, with the least 
possible delay, similar to that which exists in our 
Territories; that they will then be called on to ex- 
ercise the rights of freemen in electing their own 
representatives to the territorial legislature. " Gen- 
eral Kearny, in obedience to these instructions, 
issued his proclamation on entering Santa Fe to the 
people of New Mexico, assuring them that they 
should be protected in the enjoyment of their rights 
and liberties, and at as early a period as possible, 
should receive from the Government of the United 
States a territorial form of government, with the 
privilege of choosing their own local legislature, 
and of enjoying all the rights and privileges per- 
taining to the Territories of the United States. 
How, ihen, can it be claimed, consistently with 
the public faith, v.'hen New Mexico, immediately 
upon the issuing of this proclamation, submitted 
to our arms without the spilling of a drop of 
blood, as General Kearny informed General Wool 
— upon what pretence of justice or fairness can it 
be urged that New Mexico was conquered for 
Texas, in order thai it might be annexed ts an 
appendage to that Siate? No, sir; the provinces 
of New Mexico and California were conquered by 
the Government^of l^e United States in their own 
behalf, and the people of both were alike promisei 



the same protection and tne same rights that the 
other territorial governments of the United States 
enjoyed. But this is not all. After New Mexico 
had thus submitted to our arms, a treaty was 
forned and ratified. And what^s the language of 
that treaty ? 

" Art. 9. The Mexicans who, in thu Tenitorie'i afore- 
."^aid, shall not preserve the character ot tilizens of the 
.Mf xicaii R^■()ulllic, conformably witti wli,.t is tupulated ir, 
ihe preceding arllcle, shall lie incorporated into ilic Uniou 
or the United Stales, and be admilled at llie proper time (to 
be judged of by the Congress of the United States) to the 
enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United Slates, 
according to tlie principles of the Ciinstitutioii, and in the 
mean time shall be maintained and protected in the free 
enjoyment of their liberty and property, and secured in the 
free exercise of their religion, without restriction." 

Will it be claimed, Mr. President, that when 
this treaty was formed with the Republic of Mexi- 
co, and when it was ratified by the Senate of (he 
United States, it was our secret determination that 
the people of New Mexico, whom we found in 
the enjoyment of the rights of self-government ae 
a free people, were to be deprived of those rights, 
thus stipulated by the treaty, and turned over to 
the tender mercies of Texas, to be kept or to be 
sold as might best suit the purposes of Texas ? 
Is this the stipulation of the treaty .' Did the New 
Mexicans, who had been promised by Kearny 
the rights of self-government— did the Republic of 
Mexico, which represented their interests— sup- 
pose for a moment that the Government of the 
United States meditated so gross a violation of the 
public faith as to receive them into the Union upon 
this pledge, with a view to turn them over to the 
State of Texas, between whose inhabitants and 
the inhabitants of New Mexico a most implac- 
able animosity existed } 

" The Me.xicans who, in the Territories aforesaid, shalll 
not preserve the character of citizens of the Mexican Re- 
public, shall be incorporated into the Union." &.c. 

Yes, sir, the people of the Territory of New 
Mexico were promised at the proper time (to be 
judged of by Congress) that they should be ad- 
mitted into the Union of these States. And we 
have heard, in the course of this discussion, the 
expression of different opinions in the Senate, as 
to whether the proper time has arrived or not for 
their admission, in pursuance of this stipulation. 
Yet, according to he claim of Texas, they have 
been members of the Union since the year 1845, 
when they were solemnly admitted with a consti- 
tution adopted for them by the people of Texas 
without their knowledge or assent. According to 
this claim, we were so well satisfied with the pro- 
priety of admitting them at that time, that we re- 
ceived them willingly, and without inquiry, into 
the Union; while now we have been discussing, 
more or less, for months, and questioning the pro- 
priety of their admission, on the ground that the 
inhabitants of New Mexico are not competent to 
come into the Union as a State, however compe- 
tent they may have been to administer their own 
affairs, in their own way, before the treaty. 

There is no consistency in this course of pro- 
ceeding. But the Senator from Texas inquires, 
were they ceded to the United States as organized 
communities? Was new Mexico ceded as an or- 
ganized community? I answer. Yes, unques- 
tionably she was, and with a eovernment de facte 
in full operation; and the Government of the 
United States so understood it. Congress, after 
t^at cession, passed a joint resolution, introduced 
by one of the Senators from Virginia, [Vlr. Ma- 
son,] inviiing and offering facilities to induce em- 
I igration "to the Territories of New Mexico and 
California." How came those contiguous Ter- 



6 



iritoriee to be known anrf designated — the one by 
(the name nf New Mexico, and the other by the 
name of California? How came the people there 
to be described in the action of our own Congress 
as separate communities? Bpcanse they lived under 
aeparate systems of laws, administered by officers 
having jurisdiction over their own Territories; be- 
cause they were, in fact, separate communities, 
and were therefore referred to, not as a Territory, 
but as distinct Territories, by the treaty which 
ceded them to the United States. Their lerrrito- 
rial faws, the rights of the people acquired under 
their territorial governments, and their territorial 
officers, remained. They continued to be organ- 
ized communities. Not only so, sir; but the Ad- 
mioistrntion of this Government which received 
from Mexico the cession — the Administration of 
Mr. Polk — treated them as organized communities, 
and instructed its military officers in California to 
continue in the exercise of their functions as civil 
and military g-overnors, by the presumed assent of 
che people to the continuance of the government de 
facto which had been thus exercised over them dur- 
ing the war. They recognized thereby that they 
were not then forgetful, as Texas is and has been, 
of that great right of self-government which. lies at 
the foundation of all our institutions. They did 
not regard these military governments as continu- 
ing by force of any power which the President of 
che United States could communicate, as he could 
during the war, but as continuing by the presumed 
assent of the people — acknowledging that, until 
the Congress of the United States intervened to 
give to that people a new government as a Terri- 
tory, the right of sovereignty, so far as its exer- 
cise was necessary for their protection, continued 
En them, and, until they chose to alter the govern- 
ment which they found existing de facto, it should 
be treated by this Government as remaining by 
their presumed assent. It would seem to follow 
that whenever that government should fail to af- 
ford reasonable protection to the people — that 
whenever that assent, thus implied, should be 
withdrawn, and those communities shou'd mani- 
fest a desire to form a different government, in the 
absence of any action of the Congress of the Uni- 
ted States for their protection — the same power 
which gave vitality to the continuance of the mil- 
itary government would give vitality to the new 
government, equally founded upon the consent of 
the governed, and equally subordinate to the ju- 
risdiction of Congress when brought into exer- 
cise. 

Mr. President, reliance has been placed by the 
honorable Senator from Texas upon the fact that, 
after the conclusion of the treaty of Guadalupe 
Hidalgo, Mr. Marcy, while Secretary of War, 
gave instructions to the military officer in com- 
mand of Santa Pe not to interfere with the authori- 
ties of Texas in any efforts they might m^ke for 
the organization of civil government there — for 
that the A Jministration had not taken issue with 
Texas upon that question. But are the instruc- 
tions of the Secretary of War — are the instructions 
of the Executive competent, after the acquisition 
of territory by a treaty, to transfer that territory 
and the people who occupy it, from the United 
States to one of (he separate States? Who gave 
that authority ' Congress never authorized any 
cession of this territory to Texas. Congress has 
passed no act recognizing any authority of Texas 
ovtr any portion of the territory. It was trans- 
fe>Ted by the Republic of Mexico to the Government 
of the United States; it was paid for from the pub- 



lic Treasury; the possession was received by the 

authorities of the United States; and there was 
but one duty for the Executive to perform. That 
duty was to protect the people residing upon these 
Territories in the possession of all their rights, until 
Congress should decide what should be their fu- 
ture condition. 

But if. has been said that we received Texas into 
the Union while a war was pending between Texas 
and Mexico, and while Texas was endeavoring to 
assert, by the force of her arms, her title to New 
Mexico, as declared by hercon>'titution — in other 
words, when Texas was seeking to conquer New 
Mexico; and, therefore, the United States, having 
become involved in this war in consequence of the 
annexation of Texas, was presumed to have car- 
ried it on as the agent of Texas, and paid out the 
money from the public Treasury for the acquisition 
of this Territory as the agent of Texas, and for 
her sole benefit. This has been urged on the pre- 
sumption that Texas could have conquered New 
Mexico, if she had not herself been ceded and 
annexed to the United Slates; that Texas, in her 
then condition, could have marched an army eight 
hundred miles from her capital throueh the inter- 
vening desert and the Jornada del Maerto, and 
waged a war of conquest successfully upon the 
inhabitants of New Mexico! 

Mr. CHASE, (in his seat.) They tried it once. 

Mr. BALDWIN. Yes, sir, they had tried it 
once; and those who made the attempt came up 
missing to Texas, though New Mexico,! believe, 
was able to give an account of them. But let us 
see, for a moment, what was the condition of 
Texas at this time. Mr. Upstiur, then our Secre- 
tary of State, in the course of his correspondence 
with Mr. Murphy, our charge d'affaires in Texaa, 
un ler date of August 8, 1843, thus describes it: 

" Pressed hy an unrelenting enemy on her borders, her 
treasury exhausted, and her credit almost destroyed, Texas 
is in a cnndilion to need the support of other nations, and 
tooht.iin it on terms of wreat hardship and many sacrifices 
to herself. If she should receive no countenance and suj)- 
pnrt from the United States, it is not an extravagant suppo- 
sirion that En!;land may and will reduce her to all the de- 
pendence of a colony," &c. 

Mr. RUSK. If any agent of Texas represented 
that, he has done just what has been done a thou- 
sand times — slandered her. 

Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Murphy, in his reply 
to Mr. Upshur, under date of September 24, 1843, 
writing from Texas, says: 

" If the United States preserves and secures to Texas the 
possession of her constitution and present form of govern- 
ment, then have we gained all that we can desire, and also 
all that Texas a-ks or wishes." 

This, to be sure, is the language, not of a Texan, 
but of the charge of the United States, then resi- 
ding at Galveston. But it shows what, in the 
judgment of competent observers in and out of 
Texas, and concerned in the measure of annexa- 
tion, was the then actual condition of Texas. 

Mr. HOUSTON. Mr. President, if the gen- 
man will allow me to make an explanation, I 
think I can satisfy him. 1 can assure the gen- 
tleman that at the very time this correspondence 
took place, Texas had the recognition of her inde- 
pendence guarantied to her by England against 
Mexico. England and France both guarantied to 
defend her against the consequences. This waa 
at the very lime she was recognized, and had been 
for three months previous to the time when this 
correspondence between Mr. Upshur and Mr. 
Murphy took place. 

Mr. BALDWIN. It ia enough for my pre.seot 



purpose that in 1836 Texas liad set up her claim 
to include within (ler own iimiis the greater part 
of the population of New iSdexico; that the war 
continued frcim 1836 down to the year 1845, when 
Texas acceded to the proposals for her union with 
the United States; and that in all fliai period 
Texas had not succeeded in taking one single step 
towards establishing her claim or pteletice to a 
title in New Mexico. 

Mr. HOUSTON. If the Senator will allow 
me to make a short explanation, I think 1 can sat- 
isfy him. In the year 1842 'I'exas carried her 
arms over the Rio Grande and took Guerrero and 
Other places, and returned. F'rom that time until 
the annexation, the enemy never crossed the Rio 
Grande with any hostile force — never. 

Mr. BALDWIN. Am I to understand the 
honorable Senator from Texas to say that Texas 
ever sent a hostile army into the limits of New 
Mexico : 

Mr. HOUSTON. They sent it across the Rio 
Grande, where it suited their operations. 

Mr. BALDWIN. Was it into the limits of 
New Mexico. 

Mr. HOUSTON. No, sir; it was in the limits 
of Texas, as contended for. 

Mr. BALDWIN. Was it in the ancient limits 
of Tamaulipas or of New Mexico .' 

Mr. HOUSTON. They went up to Tamaulipas, 
where it crosses the river, and Chihuahua. The 
army crossed the river at Guerrero, and look that 
place in 1842. 

Mr. BALDWIN. I believe fam right, then, 
Mr. President, in saying that they never set hos- 
tile foot within the limits of the ancient province 
of New Mexico. 

Mr. CHASE, (in his seat ) Nor of Coahuila 
Mr. BALDWIN. No; nor of Coahuila, which 
is much lower down the Rio Grande. And yet, 
for that period of nine years before the annexation, 
it stood upon the statute books of Texas that they 
claimed all east of the Rio Grande to its source. 
1 deny the- fact upon which the argument of the 
Senator from Texas was based, that the Govern- 
ment of the United States ever assumed, during 
the progress of the war with Mexico, the duty ol 
maintaining the title of Texas by force to the 
Upper Rio Grande, or that they ever admitted that 
Texas had any title there whatever. What, then, 
Mr. President, is this attempt on the part of Texas.' 
And how does it look in the face of the civilized 
world .' Texas, a member of the Republic of 
Mexico, revolted from the tyranny of Santa Anna 
for the purpose of recovering for her own people 
the privilege of self-government. In her struggles 
throughout the contest, she shared largely in the 
sympathies of the friends of freedom. Oii-^inaliy 
the iniiabitants of Texas proclaimed to the world 
that they w< re engaged in a contest of arms to 
establish their lighis as freemen to the piivileges 
secured to them by the Mexican constitution 
of 1824. Texas maintained that position. She 
became a fiee republic. And what wag her first 
act, after establishing her own freedom? To as- 
sert upon her statute-book that she had a right to 
govern, not only the people within her own terri- 
tory, but to hold the people of New Mexico, a 
province containingat that time, 1 believe, a larger 
population ilian iexas herself, in subjectmn 
to her. She asserted a right, though she never 
exercised it, to extend her laws to New Mexico, 
to legislate for tl-.at people without their coi/Sir.t, 
and without inviung their participaTion, or giving 
'• them the privilege of repreaenlalion in her legis- 



lature. And now that New Mexico has been ceded 
to the United States as the result of the war with 
Mexico, Texas is here setting up the claiiii thai 
she has a right to hold these people of New Mex- 
ico in subjection, against their assent. Is this the 
principle for which my friend from Texas fought 
so valiantly upon the field of battle which signal- 
ized the siruggle in which his people v;ere en- 
gaged ? Was it in order that they might conquer^ 
and subdue, and govern as dependent vassals the 
free people of a neighboring province? Was thif 
the triumph achieved at Sim Jacinto, which es- 
ablished ihe independence of Texas ? If it was, 
sir, it was a triumph over the great principle. \)f 
liberty, first established and promulgated to the 
world in a practical form by our ow(i ' Declaratior, 
of Independence — a Declaration founded uponand 
vindicating " the transcendent truth of the* in- 
alienable sovereignty of the people," and which 
abrogated at once all pretensions to dominion, as- 
serted on no higher principles than those w hich 
prevailed in the dark ages, justifying the subjeq- 
tion of people by conquest to the government of 
another people, without their consent. Sir, such 
a struggle as this would have been unworthy of 
Texas and of the cause in v. hich she waa pro- 
fessedly er)gaged. 

Biit, sir, for what object has Texas asserted her 
right over New Mexico? Is it in order that she 
may govern the people of New Mexico better than 
they can govern themselves? Is it that she car. 
give them better protection, in regard to all their 
civil rights, than they can obtain under a terntoria! 
government to which they have been accustomed, 
or as a separate State, under a government admin- 
istered by themselves? No, sir, this is not the 
purpose of Texas. What, then, is it? Why, 
she wants an acknowledgment of her title to the 
sovereignty of New Mexico, in order that she may 
transfer it to the United States for a pecuniary 
consideration. The government of the United 
States, then, has waged a war with Mexico, con- 
quered the province of New Mexico, promised 
liberty to its people, purchased from Mexico out 
of a common treasury a cession of that territory, 
and now it is to be delivered up to Texas, in order 
that Texas may sell it again to the United Stale? 
to pay the debts of Texas which accrued during 
her own revolution. That, sir, is the character of 
the claim; that is what the Congress of the United 
States— that is what the Senate of the Unites 
States — in the middle of the nineteenth century, 
are called upon to sanction; that is the purpose 
for which it is now proposed to you to send out 
your commissioners to agree with Texas as to the 
terms and conditions upon which she is to cede 
to the United States her claims to New Mexico. 
Sir, [ trust no such purpose as this will ^be sanc- 
tioned by the Senate. 

., But, Mr. President, it has been said that there are 
precedents for the proposition submitted by the 
Senator from Maine. It is said that the same 
ihmg was done in reference to the Mississippi ter- 
ritory claimed by the State of Georgia and by ihe 
United States as the fruits of the revolutionary 
contest S'r, that case is entirely unlike the pres- 
ent. The State of Georgia, after the termination 
of the revolutionary war, c!;ifmed territory iyirg 
beyond the recongniz^d limits of that State. Ottitc 
Stdtfs which held western territory under a fiiniiif,r 
or perhaps a superior title, had ceded them to t!te 
United States for the coiomon benefit. Georijia 
was diepoifing of these lands for licr own ('cnefitj 
and the question arose in regard to the title, ajid 



8 



an act was passed authorizing the President of the 
United States to appoint commissioners with 
power to adjust and determine, with such com- 
missioners as might be appointed under le^islA- 
tive authority of the State of Georgjfi, ail inter- 
tering claims of the United States and that State 
CO territory situated west of the river Chattahoo- 
chee, «S:c., and also to receive proposals for the 
relinquishment or cession of the whole or any 
part of the other territory claimed by the State of 
Geora;ia, and out of the ordinary jurisdicfion there- 
of, under that act commissioners were appointed 
by the President of t+ie United States, and they 
agreed with the State of Georgia to relinquish to 
the United States, for the common benefit, all her 
claim to the western lands beyond certain specified 
•limits; and the United States agreed, in considera- 
tion of the expenditures which Georgia had made 
lapon that territory, to pay to Georgia, out of the 
first proceeds of the sales of the lands, the ;hhti 
of $1,250,000. They also agreed to remove, at 
the expense of the United States, as soon as it 
could be reasonably and peaceably effected, the 
Indian tribes from the lands reserved by Georgia. 
But the United States did not proceed upon the 
iidea that they were purchasing of Georgia lands 
which Georgia owned. They repelled her claim 
of title. They claimed the land as the fruit of the 
conquest of the common arms of the country. 
Their object was merely to remove an incum- 
brance from the title to territory claimed by the 
United States — not to purchase it under circum- 
stances that would recognize the title of Georgia. 
The commissioners were not clothed with the 
power of establishing conventional lines at their 
pleasure. The United States claimed the whole. 
Georgia had made 

Mr. DAWSON. With the permission of the 
honorable Senator, I would like to make an ob- 
servation. He has read correctly the first article 
(if the agreement. But the condition under that 
article was, that so much should be paid to extin- 
guish the title to the land then in occupancy, 
which gives something like $1,250,000. 

Mr. BALDWIN. They were relinquished pre- 
cisely in the same way that the western lands 
were relinquished by the States of Connecticut, 
New York, Virginia, and the other States, the 
title to them being secured as the fruits of a com- 
mon war. But Georgia, having incurred expenses 
upon this territory, was pnid $1,250,000, not in 
consideration of the land, but in consideration of 
an equitable claim which she had for expenditures 
on the territory. I suppose, too, that the stipula- 
tion in regard to the extinguishment of the Indian 
titles was grounded on some similar equitable 
claim, though I an(i not conversant with the par- 
(l culars. 

Mr. BERRIEN was understood to state that the 
considera'.ion which was paid by the United States 
to Georgia was not inconsistent with the claim 
which Georgia set up, being accompanied by a 
stipulation to extinguish the Indian title to the 
lands lying in the territories reserved by her. 

Mr. BALDWIN. My purpose in referring to 
the articles of agreement with Georgia, v/aa to 
show that the United Sis.t.es did not intend by that 
transaction to recognize the title of Georgia to the 
territory to which she relinquished her claim. 
Jfow, Mr. President, if it is the purpose of th's 



bill, or of t^ie amendment of "the Senator from 
Maine, to authorize a purchase of territory from 
Texas, I will be glad if the genileman will do me 
the favor to point out to me any power under the 
Constitution to justify it. I should be glad if the 
gentleman from Georgia would point out any 
power under the Constitution to purchase terri- 
tory from a State, which we recognize as belong- 
ing to that State, for the ptirpose either of forming 
a territorial government, or of converting that ter- 
ritory info another State. 

Mr. BERRIEN. It is ni>t necessary, I might 
Day to the Setiatoivto find any primary power ex- 
isting under the Constitution to purchase land, 
which is without controversy admitted to be the 
property of a Slate; it is not necessary to find any 
such power. No such power is to be exercised 
by this bill. There are conflicting claims on the 
part of the United States and of Texas in this case, 
as there were in the case of Georgia and the United 
States. 

Mr. BALDWIN. Allow me, then, to inquire 
how, by obtaining a cession of her claim to this 
territory in dispute from Texas, we can be deemed 
to recognize thereby the title of Texas, so as to 
make it subject, when ceded, to the laws of Texas.' 

Mr. BERRIEN. I can answer the gentleman 
without any hesitation. The admission of con- 
flicting claims, which requires a cession, is in- 
volved in the act of receiving the cession. That 
was the consequence of the cession by Georgia. 
The United States admitted that Georgia had a 
claim which it was desirable to acquire to quiet her 
own title. It was acquired for the purpose of quiet- 
ing her own. 

Mr. BALDWIN. I can easily understand how 
it can be claimed that the Government of the Uni- 
ted States may remove an incumbrance upon a title 
j which they claim to own themselves; but I cannot 
understand how they acquire the power, except 
for purposes specified by the Constitution, to make 
a purchase of territory which they admit, by the 
very terms of the purchase, to belong to one of the 
States of the Union, whose title they intend there- 
by to recognize and obtain. 

But, sir, whether the United States have any 
power or not, it is inexpedient, it is unwise to exer- 
cise, or attempt to exercise, any such power. It" 
Texas owns this territory— if she has a legal right 
to the dominion — why should we interfere.' Let 
het exercise it. If it belongs to the United States, 
let us confer upon the people of New Mexico the 
rights we have stipulated to confer by the treaty, 
that they may enjoy them unmolested by the pre- 
tensions of Texas. I have endeavored to show 
that it belongs to the United States— that Texas 
has not a shadow of claim to it. Entertaining this 
opinion, why should I vote to send out commis- 
sioners to Texas to corns to an agreement with her 
on some conventional boundary line? No, sir; 
there is, in my judgment, but one proper forum 
for the decision of this question, and that is the 
supreme tribunal of the land. But if we are go- 
ing to send commissioners to Texas to decide itj 
their powers should, in my opinion, be limited to 
the ascertainment and establishment of the true 
line of bound iry. excluding frcm the domain of 
Tfxas any portion of the territory over which 
Texas did not ( xerriee jurisdiction ut the time of 
her annexatioa to the Union. 



I'tiuitA iit UjB CoOi5rc»tj>/i«.l oti.be uiiict. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



il III 1 1 III 1 1 ill I 
014 647 108 



